GOP critics attack Romney's safe approach

[markomalley]

From the AP:
A chorus of prominent conservative voices is worrying aloud that Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s play-it-safe strategy is jeopardizing his chance to win the presidency.

As President Barack Obama’s campaign intensifies criticism of Romney’s background, influential Republicans — right-leaning leaders in business and the media — charge that Romney’s message on the economy and other issues is short on detail and muddled at best.

In an editorial Thursday, The Wall Street Journal said the Romney campaign is “slowly squandering an historic opportunity.”

“The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it’s Mr. Obama’s fault,” the newspaper said. “We’re on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that ‘Obama isn’t working.’ Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the president’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.”
I don’t know what these conservatives expect?

The GOP nominated a northeast liberal to run against Obama. They’re going to get what they asked for. Tweedledee versus Tweedledum:

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel

 

[_Abyssinia]

If Romney is a liberal, Obama is a conservative

I counted 3 so called conservative critics in the AP article. Who cares?

Romney polls higher than Obama in 15 battleground states. If Romney is going for a safe approach, from the results in the polls it does not seem to be hurting Romney

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I’d still like him to be more substantive.

I’d like him to start blast emailing Obama’s corrupt money trail on green boondoggles and projected healthcare waste. How many of these people were Obama bundlers?

I’d like him to start publishing the situation that America’s doctors will soon find themselves in as the Obamacare boondoggle destroys their normal hopes to work without financial misery around the corner.

I’d like the projected effect of Obamacare on big pharma who have been coming out with new medicines. Will they keep working as they are? How will they be impacted? I’m sure it won’t be good.

I’d like him to start detailing the incompetent foreign policy that welcomed the Arab spring.

I’d like him to start detailing the feckless euro policy that left our allies with their legs cut out from under them as Putin loomed large. I want blast emails about what Obama meant when he said he would have more flexibility after the election to that tyrant.

Why was NASA turned into a Muslim outreach program?

The facts are there. They need to be told. Repudiation of Keynesian economics needs to be told in all its gorey poverty producing detail.

For Romney, victory lies in the truth. He only needs to articulate it clearly.

 

[wynnejj]

Per the Wall Street Journal article cited in the opening post…

If Mitt Romney loses his run for the White House, a turning point will have been his decision Monday to absolve President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class.

I think that what he has done is not only smart, but it is right. To try to sway swing voters who voted for Obama last time around with opportunistic “You broke your promise of no middle class tax increases” rhetoric is too much like saying Obama knowingly broke his promise, when the basis of the argument defies the conventional logic prior to the SC decision that it was a penalty, not a tax. If I were a previous Obama supporter who feels that Obama has failed my expectations, I might take deep offense at such unfair, disingenuous remarks subliminally equating attacks on Obama as attacks Democrats. What you attack may be the honorable intentions of the Democrat Party where one’s loyalty often fall which only heightens any latent distrust one may harbor of the Republican Party.

 

[markomalley]

Per the Wall Street Journal article cited in the opening post…

I think that what he has done is not only smart, but it is right. To try to sway swing voters who voted for Obama last time around with opportunistic “You broke your promise of no middle class tax increases” rhetoric is too much like saying Obama knowingly broke his promise, when the basis of the argument defies the conventional logic prior to the SC decision that it was a penalty, not a tax. If I were a previous Obama supporter who feels that Obama has failed my expectations, I might take deep offense at such unfair, disingenuous remarks subliminally equating attacks on Obama as attacks Democrats. What you attack may be the honorable intentions of the Democrat Party which only heightens any latent distrust of the Republican Party.

There needs to be a solid differentiation between the GOP candidate and the Democrat candidate. The more areas Mr. Romney takes off the table, the less that differentiation will be.

Obama and Obama-lite won’t win any elections. See the 1996 election between Clinton and Dole as well as the 2008 election between Obama and McCain.

 

[wynnejj]

There needs to be a solid differentiation between the GOP candidate and the Democrat candidate. The more areas Mr. Romney takes off the table, the less that differentiation will be.

Obama and Obama-lite won’t win any elections. See the 1996 election between Clinton and Dole as well as the 2008 election between Obama and McCain.

I agree with this with the exception of using the “Gotcha. It’s a tax, so you broke your promise”. Romney thought it was a penalty, so he can’t legitimately attack on that front. In fact, it does little for Republican credibility if we use opportunistic attacks that are obviously disingenuous. There is plenty else to articulate that is substantive. No need for Obama-lite.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I agree with this with the exception of using the “Gotcha. It’s a tax, so you broke your promise”. Romney thought it was a penalty, so he can’t legitimately attack on that front. In fact, it does little for Republican credibility if we use opportunistic attacks that are obviously disingenuous. There is plenty else to articulate that is substantive. No need for Obama-lite.

When did Romney say it was a penalty? Romney’s campaign staffer said it was a penalty not Romney

 

[wynnejj]

Romney said he believed it was a penalty, but the Supreme Court decision defines it as a tax, so it is a tax.

 

[wynnejj]

Romney: It’s a Tax

This is a discussion of his “I agree with the dissent” (Supreme Court). The dissent explains why it is a penalty subject to the commerce clause, and not a tax.

 

[austenbosten]

I’ll post what I wrote on the American Thinker.

I was in the Anyone But Romney camp during the Primaries, and this is why. However I’m not going to attack Romney. I even gave him money a week ago and I still plan on voting for him enthusiastically in November.

You GOPers get what you deserve, another Gerald Ford/George HW Bush/Bob Dole/John McCain v2.0

If you wanted tough rhetoric you should have stuck with Cain, Gingrich or Santorum…but you didn’t you GOPhers were all in for Mitt because you were “afraid of the independents”

I agree with [someone else], Mitt is being Mitt and if you guys don’t like it, then you should have thought twice before allowing him to be our nominee.

Meanwhile I’m going to continue donating to Mitt when I can and vote for him and let Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin do all the fiery rhetoric.

 

[_Abyssinia]

B]Romney makes midcourse communications correction

In a sign that Mitt Romney’s campaign team plans to adjust following growing criticism from fellow Republicans, CBS News has learned that Romney campaign senior adviser Kevin Madden will soon be taking on a larger and more visible role within the campaign.

Sources tell CBS News that Madden will be spending more time on the road with Romney and is likely to become a more public presence as a TV spokesperson for the candidate. He will hit the road with Romney next week, following Romney’s New Hampshire vacation.

This move to make Madden a more public face of the campaign comes a week after fellow senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom committed a messaging misstep, which resulted in Romney having to walk back those comments.

cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57467536-503544/romney-makes-midcourse-communications-correction

 

[7_Sorrows]

i am just bothered because Romney seems so quiet. he hasn’t really been coming out and making any noise. i am hoping it is because he and his campaign staff are preparing for the convention and for the battle ahead with the debates, etc. and planning their strategy.
unfortunately, i am hearing too many people say that “Obama will win again because look who he is running against!”. are there a lot of conservative Romney haters out there?
anything has got to be better than 4 more years of Obama!!! Romney has had some missteps and changed his mind on a few positions, but his experience to lead this country far surpasses Obama in my book.
i read on the Drudge report that a woman was also being considered for VP. i hope they don’t go that route again. it certainly failed with McCain. this is not the time to say “let’s see if this will work.”